If the work of blame-mankind climate "scientists" were unimpeachable, they wouldn't be gearing up for a charm offensive.

Seven hundred global-warming doomsayers have agreed to defend their dubious "science" publicly under the auspices of the American Geophysical Union. And 39 Chicken Littles have signed up for a separate "climate rapid response team" organized by a professor at Minnesota's St. Thomas University for deployment to radio and TV talk shows.

Did the Trib miss it? Did they not bother to check? What an embarrassment - either way.

More embarrassing is the braintrust's continuing denial of reality:

Both efforts smack of increasing desperation fueled by the blame-mankind crowd's credibility crumbling beneath the weight of the scandalous Climategate e-mails, which show data manipulation, and greater public recognition of their leftist big-government agenda. That's why skeptics of global-warming orthodoxy make up half of the new GOP members just elected to Congress.

The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked from one of the world's leading climate research centers has largely vindicated the scientists involved.

The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said Wednesday that it had seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming — two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.

In its report, the committee said that, as far as it was able to ascertain, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails, or the controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity."

We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.

A British panel on Wednesday exonerated the scientists caught up in the controversy known as Climategate of charges that they had manipulated their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming.

But the panel also rebuked the scientists for several aspects of their behavior, especially their reluctance to release computer files supporting their scientific work. And it declared that a chart they produced in 1999 about past climate was “misleading.”

The new report is the last in a series of investigations of leading British and American climate researchers, prompted by the release of a cache of e-mail messages that cast doubt on their conduct and raised fresh public controversy over the science of global warming.

All five investigations have come down largely on the side of the climate researchers, rejecting a number of criticisms raised by global-warming skeptics. Still, mainstream climate science has not emerged from the turmoil unscathed.

Some polls suggest that the recent controversy has eroded public support for action on climate change, complicating the politics of that issue in Washington and other world capitals. And leading climate researchers have come in for criticism of their deportment, of their episodic reluctance to share data with climate skeptics, and for not always responding well to critical analysis of their work.

“The e-mails don’t at all change the fundamental tenets of the science,” said Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado. “But they changed the notion that people could blindly trust one authoritative group, when it turns out they’re just like everybody else.”

I take it there are more reports exonerating the CPU. Not that it matters. It's like the braintrust inhabits a different reality. Where is their evidence that "climategate" is anything other than a faded photograph of a puff of smoke in a hall of mirrors?

They don't have any because that evidence doesn't exist. All they have is the (false) assertion that Climategate somehow undermined the science.

U.S. Representative John Shimkus, possible future chairman of the Congressional committee that deals with energy and its attendant environmental concerns, believes that climate change should not concern us since God has already promised not to destroy the Earth.

Some background:

During a hearing in 2009, he dismissed the dangers of climate change and the warnings of the scientific community by quoting the Bible.

First, he noted God’s post-Flood promise to Noah in Genesis 8:21-22.

“Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though all inclinations of his heart are evil from childhood and never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done.

“As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, will never cease.”

“I believe that’s the infallible word of God, and that’s the way it’s going to be for his creation,” Shimkus said.

Then he quoted Matthew 24:31.

“And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds from one end of the heavens to the other.”

“The Earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a Flood,” Shimkus asserted. “I do believe that God’s word is infallible, unchanging, perfect.”

While I usually think the lines from the 11th century poet unfair as the distiction between those with brains and those with religion is too harshly drawn, in this instance Abul'-Ala' al-Ma'arri was more than adequately describing Shimkus when he wrote:

The inhabitants of the earth are of two sorts:Those with brains, but no religion,And those with religion, but no brains.

Such unending and frightening ignorance. Even more frightening that it's found a comfortable home deep in the GOP.

9 comments:

it had seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warmingOf course the Oxburgh panel did not find any wrongdoing with Phil Jones.Phil Jones choose which of his papers the panel could review.Phil Jones got to endorse papers for Oxburgh inquiry

Note the disclaimers in the Science Assessment Panel report.they'd seen no evidence ...as far as it was able to ascertain ...Lawmakers stressed that their report—which was written after only a single day of oral testimony—did not cover all the issues and would not be as in-depth

Gee, HTTT, you are quoting denier websites, the second quoting that well known truth teller Andrew Breitbart.

It there a specific paper of Dr Jones yuou would like to quote from?

Is there some specific evidence you would like to quote from the *stolen* emails (date, time and author, please)?

I know you resent them because they act like authority figures who are annoyed at being questioned (at least, I think that is what you said at one point). But isn't that how Andrew Breitbart reacts when his "edited" tapes are questioned? We all see how eager he was to tell the truth in the ACORN and Shirley Sherrod cases.

Why are you bringing Andrew Breitbart into this?He is just hosting a AP article that he gets from the AP feed he subscribes to.UK 'Climategate' inquiry largely clears scientists By RAPHAEL G. SATTERAssociated Press Writer

Why are the same people who find the climategate email suspect because they were "stolen/hacked" do not have the same problem with anything published by wikileaks.

How about these quotes from Phil JonesClimate scientists should think about data quality more often, says Jones"We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider." "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Well, possibly we can assume that Breitbart didn't change an AP article, although perhaps you will one day admit he has few scruples with material he or his agents produce. Probably not.

I notice you avoided my direct questions, as you always do.

And you trotted you a 2008 article that you have trotted out before. Presumably other people, including the people on the British panels have seen it. But then you are going to say that the panels were fixed. You are going to say that 97 percent of the climate science community and liberal politicians (in the US and around the world) are a conspiracy to rob the rich and create a worldwide socialist state or some such shit.

Or, as this Representative Shimkus apparently said, the United States should rely on what the bible says the Christian God intends. Do you believe in the separation of church and state? Or do you think that we should engage in a crusade in the Middle East against Islam?

And I haven't said anything about Wikileaks; what, do I need to apologize for any random accusation you might potentially make against liberals. And you are saying anything liberals might have done exonerates climate deniers for anything they do? Or are you saying the email thief was a whistle blower who has just decided to remain anonymous? Because they believe so much in their principles?

Actually, like Woody Allen with Marshall McLuhan in Annie Hall nothing would make me happier than if the nation's founding fathers were around today. But of course they aren't here, and conservatives/Tea Party people know that. That's why they invoke them (and a God they alone claim to hear) whenever they can.

You are going to say that 97 percent of the climate science community and liberal politicians (in the US and around the world) are a conspiracy to rob the rich and create a worldwide socialist state or some such shit. The Scientific consensus has never been wrong before?Paul R. Ehrlich's population bomb or Piltdown man still remain as rock solid fact.

You still have not answered my first questions about which paper from Doctor Phil Jones you think he should have presented to the Oxbrugh panel, or which email specifically (author and date) disproves all of climate science. Of course, you never answer direct questions, you keep changing the subject.

But whatever, although I have to ask what Piltdown man and Ehrlich’s population theories really have to do with climate science? Do you think Piltdown man could happen today, with today’s dating techniques? And as for Ehrlich, I guess he had some followers, but certainly there was no immediate government action even proposed, let alone considered. I mean, if you just want to say all science is bad, just say it.